Is this forum really Laver-oriented? I remember a lot of Rosewall fans... am I wrong?

Click to expand...

It's a forum for past players and obviously Laver is one of the most famous past players so a good percentage will discuss Laver and some of his accomplishments. If they had a forum like this 40 years ago a good percentage will discuss Bill Tilden and Don Budge but many of those observers aren't around anymore. I wouldn't mind if the forums discussed players earlier than the 1950's which they do on occasion. There are also less info on tennis the further back that you go which also restricts discussion.

Rosewall is discussed very often because his accomplishments rival Laver's and some think surpass him. The same can be said about Pancho Gonzalez. I've always thought that among Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall the one with the greatest single weapon is Gonzalez, with his great serve, possibly the greatest in tennis history.

It's a forum for past players and obviously Laver is one of the most famous past players so a good percentage will discuss Laver and some of his accomplishments. If they had a forum like this 40 years ago a good percentage will discuss Bill Tilden and Don Budge but many of those observers aren't around anymore. I wouldn't mind if the forums discussed players earlier than the 1950's which they do on occasion. There are also less info on tennis the further back that you go which also restricts discussion.

Rosewall is discussed very often because his accomplishments rival Laver's and some think surpass him. The same can be said about Pancho Gonzalez. I've always thought that among Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall the one with the greatest single weapon is Gonzalez, with his great serve, possibly the greatest in tennis history.

Click to expand...

Rosewall´s backhand was a superb weapon.So was Laver´s.But, of course, Gonzales had what many still consider to be the best ever first ball.

It's not a question of marketing but great timing also. Laver was the best player in the world when the Open Era started and even at that point considered one of the greatest if not the greatest that ever lived by many experts. Laver in the first opportunity to win the Open Grand Slam won all four majors in 1969 to accomplish this great feat. Television was beginning to make tennis a far more popular sport and Laver was really the first superstar of the Open Era.

But marketing had nothing to do with Laver's greatness. Marketing does not win you an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam. When you do that it's a sign of great dominance. But the timing allowed Laver to become the main focus of the beginning of the Open Era.

If Pancho Gonzalez was able to play in an Open Era it is very possible that he would have won the Open Grand Slam and this is the case with Rosewall.

Laver won at least 200 tournaments in his career. Marketing does not allow you to do that. Talent and skill plus competitive zeal allowed Laver to do that.

Rosewall was a super player, perhaps the GOAT but I do think Laver should be ranked slightly above Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I agree.You spotted it right on timing.Laver is the only guy that can be placed above those two monsters called Rosewall and Gonzales.Hoad,Budge and Tilden are not so far, anyway.

Here's the translation of an old post of mine (I write on some italian forums).

Rosewall Majors (1957: Wembley Pro, 1958: French Pro, 1960: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1961: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1962: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1963: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1964: French Pro, 1965: French Pro, US Pro, 1966: French Pro, 1968: Roland Garros, 1970: US Open, 1971: Australian Open, 1972: WCT Finals) 19 for sure, 20 if you count the Madison Square Garden Pro 1966, 21 if you count the 1963 tournée as a fourth Major for that season.

Laver Majors (1964: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1965: Wembley Pro, 1966: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1967: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, 1968: Wimbledon, 1969: Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) 14 for sure, 15 if you count the Pacific Southwest Open 1968.
Some count the two Tennis Champions Classic events: even though they were two big titles, in the open era I prefer to count normal tournaments. Anyway, even if count them, you're still below Rosewall: 17

Just think that when they faced each other for the first time Ken Rosewall was 28, and that an over-30 Rosewall won 5 of their 11 Majors meetings when Laver was considered the undisputed world no. 1 (1965-69): that says a lot about Rosewall's stature.

Here's the translation of an old post of mine (I write on some italian forums).

Rosewall Majors (1957: Wembley Pro, 1958: French Pro, 1960: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1961: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1962: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1963: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1964: French Pro, 1965: French Pro, US Pro, 1966: French Pro, 1968: Roland Garros, 1970: US Open, 1971: Australian Open, 1972: WCT Finals) 19 for sure, 20 if you count the Madison Square Garden Pro 1966, 21 if you count the 1963 tournée as a fourth Major for that season.

Laver Majors (1964: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1965: Wembley Pro, 1966: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1967: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, 1968: Wimbledon, 1969: Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) 14 for sure, 15 if you count the Pacific Southwest Open 1968.
Some count the two Tennis Champions Classic events: even though they were two big titles, in the open era I prefer to count normal tournaments. Anyway, even if count them, you're still below Rosewall: 17

Just think that when they faced each other for the first time Ken Rosewall was 28, and that an over-30 Rosewall won 5 of their 11 Majors meetings when Laver was considered the undisputed world no. 1 (1965-69): that says a lot about Rosewall's stature.

I agree Rosewall might be greater than Laver, and let's not forget those fantastic YEC WCT Dallas Major victores in 1971 and 1972, where in both matches at an advanced age, he beat Rod Laver for both of the victories. To win against such an opponent at 37-ish in such important matches is a testament to his incredible longevity and ability.

You are wrong. This yet is a Laver forum and, most of all, a Federer forum.

You will get harsh critics if you place Rosewall ahead of Federer and Laver. Believe me: I have my experience...

Those who praise Rosewall here mostly praise Laver even more.

Alas, you are in a small group yet but maybe this group could grow a bit with the time...

Click to expand...

Actually you will have harsh critics if you denigrate Laver or Federer without backing up your claims. A lot of people on this forum may rank Laver, Federer or both higher than Rosewall, but very few of them denigrate him as you denigrate Fed with wobbly arguments such as "despite all the arguments and evidence all of you provided, I still believe that Djokovic's peak level is higher than Federer's (because thus Federer is out of the competition with my dear Rosewall and Djokovic was never in it anyway)".

Actually you will have harsh critics if you denigrate Laver or Federer without backing up your claims. A lot of people on this forum may rank Laver, Federer or both higher than Rosewall, but very few of them denigrate him as you denigrate Fed with wobbly arguments such as "despite all the arguments and evidence all of you provided, I still believe that Djokovic's peak level is higher than Federer's (because thus Federer is out of the competition with my dear Rosewall and Djokovic was never in it anyway)".

Click to expand...

Flash, You do me wrong. I don't have wobbly arguments. I just feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer. It's my right to feel so.

Several posters do denigrate Rosewall without giving any arguments (or pseudo-arguments such as Rosewall not winning Wimbledon). For instance Limpinhitter who is well appreciated by many posters here, stated that he knows at least 13 players better than Rosewall. Argument?

When ranking Djokovic ahead of Federer (NOT regarding achievements of course!) I never have any ulterior motive (to push Rosewall or similary).

I'm disappointed. But you confirm what I have written to Federic: You will get harsh criticism if you say that Rosewall is ahead of Laver and Federer (or at least equal to them)...

Flash, You do me wrong. I don't have wobbly arguments. I just feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer. It's my right to feel so.

Several posters do denigrate Rosewall without giving any arguments. For instance Limpinhitter who is well appreciated by many posters here, stated that he knows at least 13 players better than Rosewall. Argument?

When ranking Djokovic ahead of Federer (NOT regarding achievements of course!) I never have any ulterior motive (to push Rosewall or similary).

I'm disappointed. But you confirm what I have written to Federic: You will get harsh criticism if you say that Rosewall is ahead of Laver and Federer (or at least equal to them)...

Click to expand...

i probably regret getting into this debate you certainly have the right to feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer, but is your feeling really a rational argument? maybe there´s the confusion.

btw, i kinda miss the old limpin´hitter, but he was very controversial, not at least because of posts like the one you mentioned

i probably regret getting into this debate you certainly have the right to feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer, but is your feeling really a rational argument? maybe there´s the confusion.

btw, i kinda miss the old limpin´hitter, but he was very controversial, not at least because of posts like the one you mentioned

Click to expand...

treblings, Of course one who feels this or that cannot prove it. I never claimed this my feeling was an argument.

If Limpinhitter would have had only controversial posts I would have accept them. But he sometimes had nasty statements where he distorted my statements. But beyond any border was his comparison of my person with Seles stabber, Günter Parche...

treblings, Of course one who feels this or that cannot prove it. I never claimed this my feeling was an argument.

If Limpinhitter would have had only controversial posts I would have accept them. But he sometimes had nasty statements where he distorted my statements. But beyond any border was his comparison of my person with Seles stabber, Günter Parche...

Click to expand...

Bobby,
that´s perfectly understandable. then the other poster is wrong, calling it a wobbly argument.
re Limpinhitter: i never read that post and comment about you. that one is totally unacceptable

Flash, You do me wrong. I don't have wobbly arguments. I just feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer. It's my right to feel so.

Several posters do denigrate Rosewall without giving any arguments (or pseudo-arguments such as Rosewall not winning Wimbledon). For instance Limpinhitter who is well appreciated by many posters here, stated that he knows at least 13 players better than Rosewall. Argument?

When ranking Djokovic ahead of Federer (NOT regarding achievements of course!) I never have any ulterior motive (to push Rosewall or similary).

I'm disappointed. But you confirm what I have written to Federic: You will get harsh criticism if you say that Rosewall is ahead of Laver and Federer (or at least equal to them)...

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Limpinhitter didn't said anything for a while. The active members in this current discussion in different thread are Krosero, abmk, Forzamilan, TMF, PC1, my self...and I don't recall anyone other than Limpi denigrating Rosewall. I recall writing that i have huge respect for consistency and that I consider Rosewall's five finals in Wimby as a pro, not as a con in his resume. You could make the difference between Limpinhitter and the actual poster you arguing with.

You are of course free to feel what you want, but you shouldn't espect us to accept what you feel as a verity, especially if we have given numerous arguments which are not based on what we "feel".

Anyone who doesn't think to include Rosewall in a conversation about potential GOAT's is obviously dead wrong, his record speaks for itself. Likewise anyone who doesn't think Federer's peak level deserves a place in the top 10 is a fool.

Federic, fine analysis but some would say that Laver was stronger when both were at their peak.

Click to expand...

The peak-game fact doesn't interest me that much to be honest. I'm more interested in the overall career.

Who's greater, a player who wins 8 Majors in a row but after that rapidly declines, or a player who wins 15 non-consecutive Majors in 10 years? My answer is without any kind of doubt: the second!
That's why I think that Rosewall was a bit greater than Laver.

The peak-game fact doesn't interest me that much to be honest. I'm more interested in the overall career.

Who's greater, a player who wins 8 Majors in a row but after that rapidly declines, or a player who wins 15 non-consecutive Majors in 10 years? My answer is without any kind of doubt: the second!
That's why I think that Rosewall was a bit greater than Laver.

Click to expand...

15 is a lot more bigger than 8...but if the difference in wins was smaller, I would also look at the number of finals and semi-finals reached. Connors and Lenld are players which may be forgotten when we look only at the titles, but who rise when we look at overall consistency (which I hold very at the highest).

Flash, You do me wrong. I don't have wobbly arguments. I just feel that Djokovic is a bit stronger than Federer. It's my right to feel so.

Click to expand...

umm, no, you flat out stated that you believed djoker's ( & nadal's ) peak was far better than federer's , more than enough to balance out federer's better longevity so far ........ without giving any valid reasons whatsoever ...

when I & krosero gave long detailed explanations as to why that couldn't be anywhere close to reality, your only answers were that this was a federer fan gathering and you were just trying to play the victim !

how would you feel if for example someone said that lendl's/becker's peaks were so much better than rosewall and more than enough to balance out rosewall's longevity ?

The peak-game fact doesn't interest me that much to be honest. I'm more interested in the overall career.

Who's greater, a player who wins 8 Majors in a row but after that rapidly declines, or a player who wins 15 non-consecutive Majors in 10 years? My answer is without any kind of doubt: the second!
That's why I think that Rosewall was a bit greater than Laver.

Click to expand...

But here's a question for you, a person can be very very good for 15 years but not very super. That happens in many sports. An example has been made in Major League Baseball in the United States of Don Sutton, who was very good pitcher for I suppose around 20 years. He was never super. His former teammate Sandy Koufax was for about five years to some the best pitcher in baseball history. He had some years that were incredible. Sutton won 324 games and Koufax only 167. No one considers Sutton and Koufax to be on the same level. Koufax is revered in baseball history. If you wanted one pitcher to pitcher one important game for you at their peak, Koufax would be up there as one of the top choices. I doubt if anyone would pick Sutton.

We already know Novak Djokovic has had several excellent years with one super duper year in 2011. Would you rather have Novak Djokovic of 2011 play one match for you or Andre Agassi in any year? As of now Agassi has had a superior career to Djokovic? I would pick Djokovic. We'll see how great or poor Djokovic's peak years will compare to others.

Now in comparing Rosewall and Laver, both actually had very high peaks and both were super players. I believe Laver's peak was a bit higher but it's arguable and the overall career record is also close.

Would you rather be number ten in the world for 15 years or would rather be number one in the world for three straight years, win a number of majors, decline and retire after ten years? It's not easy. I know many fans in team sports that would rather finish last every year but one, but that one year they win the champion than finish second every year without winning the championship.

I think in evaluations of players we have to look at both peak and career. Would Michael Jordan be any less a player if he retired after eight years? Would we argue that Karl Malone is better than Michael Jordan if this happened? I don't think so because Jordan's peak play was so high it's ridiculous. In this case of course Jordan did play for a long time so his career record and peak is super. Incidentally Karl Malone's peak and career overall was great but I don't think either was as great as Michael Jordan's.

But here's a question for you, a person can be very very good for 15 years but not very super. That happens in many sports. An example has been made in Major League Baseball in the United States of Don Sutton, who was very good pitcher for I suppose around 20 years. He was never super. His former teammate Sandy Koufax was for about five years to some the best pitcher in baseball history. He had some years that were incredible. Sutton won 324 games and Koufax only 167. No one considers Sutton and Koufax to be on the same level. Koufax is revered in baseball history. If you wanted one pitcher to pitcher one important game for you at their peak, Koufax would be up there as one of the choice. I doubt if anyone would pick Sutton.

We already know Novak Djokovic has had several excellent years with one super duper year in 2011. Would you rather have Novak Djokovic of 2011 play one match for you or Andre Agassi in any year? As of now Agassi has had a superior career to Djokovic? I would pick Djokovic. We'll see how great or poor Djokovic's peak years will compare to others.

Click to expand...

And what if the Djokovic who shows up is not the AO 2011 version but the one who loose a 3rd against clay god Kohlschreiber at RG? If I could be certain that the player I choose will play his best tennis ever, than I could as well choose some "one match wonder" like Nalbandian or Safin. If not, the most consistent players are a better choice, because their is more chance that they will come with a high level or play, or there is more chance than they still can win with a relatively bad level of play: Connors, Lendl (the Sutton of tennis), Federer (who had 4 super duper years...)

And what if the Djokovic who shows up is not the AO 2011 version but the one who loose a 3rd against clay god Kohlschreiber at RG? If I could be certain that the player I choose will play his best tennis ever, than I could as well choose some "one match wonder" like Nalbandian or Safin. If not, the most consistent players are a better choice, because their is more chance that they will come with a high level or play, or there is more chance than they still can win with a relatively bad level of play: Connors, Lendl (the Sutton of tennis), Federer (who had 4 super duper years...)

Click to expand...

And that's why we have to look at peak level over a period of a few years, not just one year. I usually look at a period of five years.

PC1, I can't answer you about Baseball because I don't know anything about it. Here in Italy it is a minor sport, nobody follows it (also, nobody follows golf).

We are not talking about being number 10 for ten years or being number 1 for two years: the second option is obviously the best one.

We are talking about being a dominant player and winning Majors for a long, extraordinary time. Laver's Majors are in the 14-17 zone, Rosewall's in the 19-21 zone (I didn't count the 1971 WCT Final because there was a strong AO that year). Even taking Rosewall's lower statistic, he's ahead of Laver's highest margin.

PC1, I can't answer you about Baseball because I don't know anything about it. Here in Italy it is a minor sport, nobody follows it (also, nobody follows golf).

We are not talking about being number 10 for ten years or being number 1 for two years: the second option is obviously the best one.

We are talking about being a dominant player and winning Majors for a long, extraordinary time. Laver's Majors are in the 14-17 zone, Rosewall's in the 19-21 zone (I didn't count the 1971 WCT Final because there was a strong AO that year). Even taking Rosewall's lower statistic, he's ahead of Laver's highest margin.

Click to expand...

It's close enough that I'm not going to dispute your opinion on Laver and Rosewall. But my point was that peak level and career level should BOTH be considered.

There's an argument for Rosewall being ahead of Laver, but basically every experts have Federer ahead of Rosewall, with some players fill in the gap between them.

Click to expand...

There is also numerous arguments for Rosewall ahead of Federer also.

As far as your Laver forum tinged with negativism comment think of it this way. It's the former players forum. Who is the first major superstar in tennis of the Open Era. Yes, it's Rod Laver.

Maybe if we had this type of forum available in the 1960's people would talk about Bill Tilden but guess what, most of those guys aren't around anymore. Maybe in the 1970's they would have written about Don Budge but guess what, very few who are around have seen Budge in person at his peak.

Laver was on television, he won the Grand Slam in 1969 during the Open Era and he won it on television.

Now in a few years this will be definitely the Federer Forum. No doubt about it. But bottom line we discuss Former Players here and that includes Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.

I wouldn't mind if we discussed more of Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzalez here. They're legendary and interesting to discuss.

Incidentally you have a tendency in your agenda to praise Federer to knock down other players, I think it would be better to focus on the great achievements of Federer and why he in your opinion deserves to be call the GOAT. You have done things like knocking Laver's height to the point that it is quite amusing. Laver seems to get shorter and shorter. You've called other players tournament victories minor tournaments or if I get it correct pitty pat tournaments. Federer has a lot of huge positives in his favor like his dominating years, his great forehand, serve etc. Please focus more on that.

It's close enough that I'm not going to dispute your opinion on Laver and Rosewall. But my point was that peak level and career level should BOTH be considered.

Click to expand...

Ok, I can accept this vision, even if I prefer to look at the overall career achievement.
Anyway, even considering both these perspectives, we have Laver slightly ahead with his peak (two Major-pokers against one), and Rosewall well ahead on career achievements (five undisputed Majors more than Laver) and longevity (1957-1972 against 1964-1969).

I think in evaluations of players we have to look at both peak and career. Would Michael Jordan be any less a player if he retired after eight years? Would we argue that Karl Malone is better than Michael Jordan if this happened? I don't think so because Jordan's peak play was so high it's ridiculous. In this case of course Jordan did play for a long time so his career record and peak is super. Incidentally Karl Malone's peak and career overall was great but I don't think either was as great as Michael Jordan's.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would, and this is coming from a Jordan fan. If Jordan only played 8 years, he only has 1 ring, 2 MVP, and a bunch of other stats/records that he wouldn't have. Malone was consistent at being the top power forward all years, won MVPs, 2nd behind Kareem in scoring, carry his team to playoff every year, most durable(no injury). Without Jordan, he and the Jazz would have won 1998 finals. So with Malone's longevity, that would eclipses Jordan's 8 years.

Is Wilander > Agassi just because he had a monster year in 1988 but Agassi never had a dominant year like him? No, Agassi career achievement surpass Wilander's peak play. And the experts would agree on this.

Is Wilander > Agassi just because he had a monster year in 1988 but Agassi never had a dominant year like him? No, Agassi career achievement surpass Wilander's peak play. And the experts would agree on this.

Click to expand...

Well if you go by just that then Rosewall may very well surpass Federer with 136 tournaments won and 23 majors plus a Pro Grand Slam.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily true but the point is (and I don't expect you to recognize it) that any GOAT candidate has pluses over other GOAT candidates. Federer has pluses over many GOAT candidates and those same GOAT candidates have pluses over him.

Some GOAT candidates have pluses over Laver and Rosewall.

Gonzalez for example has many pluses over many GOAT candidates as does Bill Tilden.

Actually Agassi's peak years may arguably be superior to Wilander's 1988 if you examine it closely. Wilander didn't win many tournaments outside of the majors that year. That's a poor example. It's an excellent year but hardly dominant.

As far as your Laver forum tinged with negativism comment think of it this way. It's the former players forum. Who is the first major superstar in tennis of the Open Era. Yes, it's Rod Laver.

Maybe if we had this type of forum available in the 1960's people would talk about Bill Tilden but guess what, most of those guys aren't around anymore. Maybe in the 1970's they would have written about Don Budge but guess what, very few who are around have seen Budge in person at his peak.

Laver was on television, he won the Grand Slam in 1969 during the Open Era and he won it in front of millions of viewers on television.

Now in a few years this will be definitely the Federer Forum. No doubt about it and I'm sure you'll be a major contributor at that point. But bottom line we discuss Former Players here and that includes Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.

I wouldn't mind if we discussed more of Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzalez here. They're legendary and interesting to discuss.

Incidentally you have a tendency in your agenda to praise Federer to knock down other players, I think it would be better to focus on the great achievements of Federer and why he in your opinion deserves to be call the GOAT. You have done things like knocking Laver's height to the point that it is quite amusing. Laver seems to get shorter and shorter. You've called other players tournament victories minor tournaments or if I get it correct pitty pat tournaments. Federer has a lot of huge positives in his favor like his dominating years, his great forehand, serve etc. Please focus more on that.

Of course I am and you are entitled to disagree. My point is that unlike you, many do not think Federer belongs in his own separate tier.

As of now I don't believe Rosewall is the GOAT either but I leave open the possibility he could be. To not think that considering the great record of Rosewall makes no logical sense to me. You have to keep your mind open.

Some GOAT candidates have pluses over Laver and Rosewall.
Gonzalez for example has many pluses over many GOAT candidates as does Bill Tilden.

Click to expand...

Surely, Tilden is an excellent GOAT candidate as well, in the same Rosewall league. Laver is slightly below them in my opinion.
Gonzales was excellent and extra-dominant too, but I don't know where to put him because he missed a clay Major.
I remember Tony Trabert saying that on clay, where his serve was slowed down, Pancho was not the strongest.

Actually Agassi's peak years may arguably be superior to Wilander's 1988 if you examine it closely. Wilander didn't win many tournaments outside of the majors that year. That's a poor example. It's an excellent year but hardly dominant.

Click to expand...

Hardly dominant with 3 Majors out of 4 (+Miami* and Cincinnati)?
I think I have to disagree.

*When it was a seven rounds tournament and you had to win three sets from the first to the last match.

Surely, Tilden is an excellent GOAT candidate as well, in the same Rosewall league. Laver is slightly below them in my opinion.
Gonzales was excellent and extra-dominant too, but I don't know where to put him because he missed a clay Major.
I remember Tony Trabert saying that on clay, where his serve was slowed down, Pancho was not the strongest.

Hardly dominant with 3 Majors out of 4 (+Miami* and Cincinnati)?
I think I have to disagree.

*When it was a seven rounds tournament and you had to win three sets from the first to the last match.

Click to expand...

Actually in 1999 he won two majors and eight total tournaments. Wilander won three majors and six total tournaments. Don't get me wrong I would pick Wilander's year but Agassi has had some super years. My personal opinion is his most dominant year was 1995 and yet he only won one major.

Bottom line is that Federer is not the undisputed GOAT imo. As of now I don't believe Rosewall is necessarily the GOAT either but I leave open the possibility he could be. To not think that considering the great record of Rosewall makes no logical sense to me.

I am way out of my league on this one. I have only seen comparatively little of both of them. But there is a marketing angle to this. When I remember Rod, I imagine these glorious gets and shots, incredible variety and a flair for the dramatic shot well past his prime. Ken is just not 'flashy'. He is always there, but I don't visualize the sprint. The overhead wins the point just the same, but the angle and power aren't as acute. The volleys are always solid but he may need two, instead of one golden outstretched one. Some of this may have to do with us not being quite as accustomed visually to the lefty spins. Some might be far simpler. Rosewall does not go for glory, if average but certain will do the job just as well. He saves line balls, for when line balls are needed. There is more McEnroe in Laver, more Wilander in Rosewall.

I am way out of my league on this one. I have only seen comparatively little of both of them. But there is a marketing angle to this. When I remember Rod, I imagine these glorious gets and shots, incredible variety and a flair for the dramatic shot well past his prime. Ken is just not 'flashy'. He is always there, but I don't visualize the sprint. The overhead wins the point just the same, but the angle and power aren't as acute. The volleys are always solid but he may need two, instead of one golden outstretched one. Some of this may have to do with us not being quite as accustomed visually to the lefty spins. Some might be far simpler. Rosewall does not go for glory, if average but certain will do the job just as well. He saves line balls, for when line balls are needed. There is more McEnroe in Laver, more Wilander in Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I think your analogy is basically correct BTURNER. Incidentally when you say you don't visualize the sprint with Rosewall that is actually very much a tribute to Rosewall. Players were always amazed how he seemed always in position to hit a shot that others had to run to. It shows how great his footwork and anticipation was.

McEnroe has always said his idol was Laver so it is an appropriate comparison although I think Laver had greater groundstroking power while McEnroe had the better serve and a bit better volley.

I think your analogy is basically correct BTURNER. Incidentally when you say you don't visualize the sprint with Rosewall that is actually very much a tribute to Rosewall. Players were always amazed how he seemed always in position to hit a shot that others had to run to. It shows how great his footwork and anticipation was.

McEnroe has always said his idol was Laver so it is an appropriate comparison although I think Laver had greater groundstroking power while McEnroe had the better serve and a bit better volley.

Click to expand...

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I don't think King's groundies (relatively speaking) was the equal of Muscles. Some actually have compared Rosewall's overall game to Connors in the footwork and the flat style of play. I think Connors hit harder but Rosewall was the superior volleyer and Rosewall made some less errors but I can see that comparison.

I don't think King's groundies (relatively speaking) was the equal of Muscles. Some actually have compared Rosewall's overall game to Connors in the footwork and the flat style of play. I think Connors hit harder but Rosewall was the superior volleyer and Rosewall made some less errors but I can see that comparison.

Click to expand...

It was her tactical mindset at net and sense of risk to which I refer. Connors, as a volleyer was a one volley kind of guy. He did not use a volley, to set up an easy volley. He did not mind going up, but he did not feel confident in hanging around up there.

It was her tactical mindset at net and sense of risk to which I refer. Connors, as a volleyer was a one volley kind of guy. He did not use a volley, to set up an easy volley. He did not mind going up, but he did not feel confident in hanging around up there.

On the other hand, Limpinhitter didn't said anything for a while. The active members in this current discussion in different thread are Krosero, abmk, Forzamilan, TMF, PC1, my self...and I don't recall anyone other than Limpi denigrating Rosewall. I recall writing that i have huge respect for consistency and that I consider Rosewall's five finals in Wimby as a pro, not as a con in his resume. You could make the difference between Limpinhitter and the actual poster you arguing with.

You are of course free to feel what you want, but you shouldn't espect us to accept what you feel as a verity, especially if we have given numerous arguments which are not based on what we "feel".

Click to expand...

Flash, Five Wimby finals as a pro?

All lists about playing strength are "feeled" lists, not arguments.

You are free to take it as a verity what I feel or to don't take. Where is the problem?

Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

Flash, Five Wimby finals as a pro?
Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

Click to expand...

This is just a distortion of the history of tennis in my opinion. No way, really no way Rosewall can be rated under a top-5 placement.

You are free to take it as a verity what I feel or to don't take. Where is the problem?

Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

Click to expand...

I think that reaching 5 finals is a good thing in career who shouldn't be used to downgrade a career. For me you can say "X player didn't won Wimbledon which is a weakness in his career" but you can't say "x player reached five wimbledon finals, which is a weakness in his career!" I personally rank Rosewall in the top tier, along Laver, Federer and maybe Gonzales and Tilden (I have some work to do to be sure).

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

Click to expand...

BTURNER, Some posters told me there are no people in this forum who denigrate Rosewall, therefore I hesitate to say that YOU denigrate him ("veteran B.J.King")....

This is just a distortion of the history of tennis in my opinion. No way, really no way Rosewall can be rated under a top-5 placement.

Click to expand...

Federic, I appreciate the fresh wind coming from Rome now. It's good to have at least a few colleagues who counter the huge amount of Federer and Laver admirers (I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).